2189 replies to this topic

[smithx]

No one knows what TA-65 is.
I think it may likely be A4 and not Cycloastragenol at this time.

Look back at Post # 14 of this thread.

I concluded that TA-65 can't be A4 because of their statements about detectability.

[smithx]

Info that didn't get in the other post: they have an analysis of "Product B" as claiming to have 1mg of astrogaloside IV per 2 capsules, but actually having 0mg of TA-65. This is ambiguous because it could simply be lacking what it claims to have.

On the other hand, in over 1400mg of dried astragalus root, one would expect there to be more than 0.14mg of A4, which is their stated limit of detection for TA-65 (1ppm).

[kitinje]

No one knows what TA-65 is.
I think it may likely be A4 and not Cycloastragenol at this time.

Look back at Post # 14 of this thread.

I concluded that TA-65 can't be A4 because of their statements about detectability.

They also stated their telomeres got 100+ bases longer in 3 month, but now they are increasing the dosage from 5mg to 100mg daily. (20x)
Why would they do it?

They probably modified A4 to make it more hydrophilic to permit better diffusion.

But A4 and cycloastragenol are proven to be telomerase activators, they might work as well but at a higher dosage.

But i'm not ready to be a guinea pig myself and take 1g of A4 daily...

[niner]

They also stated their telomeres got 100+ bases longer in 3 month, but now they are increasing the dosage from 5mg to 100mg daily. (20x)
Why would they do it?

My guess is they didn't appreciate how inaccurate the test was, and eventually realized that they weren't getting the results they thought they were. But how to explain the biomarkers and other results? A combination of placebo effect and the other supplements that are part of the patton protocol?

They probably modified A4 to make it more hydrophilic to permit better diffusion.

They can't change the molecule without going through the FDA. It would no longer be a natural product if they did that. However, they could play around with formulation, and there's a lot they could do there. For example, they could put it in liposomes, or a micronized emulsion, or incorporate other compounds with it that would modify it's bioavailability, like piperine.

[kitinje]

My guess is they didn't appreciate how inaccurate the test was, and eventually realized that they weren't getting the results they thought they were. But how to explain the biomarkers and other results? A combination of placebo effect and the other supplements that are part of the patton protocol?

Well I'm now reconsidering my position.

Let's suppose TA-65 is in fact Cycloastragenol and that it was working at 5mg/day.

Rejuvenation Rates with Astragalus Extracts and TA-65
In treatment with telomerase activators, skin constitution is restored to young skin after about 20 population doublings are added. Note that TA Science's TA-65 (probably cycloastragenol) can add 230 base pairs to blood granulocyte telomeres in vivo in just 3 months. For typical cells on the average, 20 doubling x 50(bp/doubling) = 1000 base pairs, so that a couple of years would be typically required, since telomerase is turned on for just two 3-month periods in a year using the TA Sciences Patton Protocol. That is, they get 460 bp/year, so that 1000/460 = 2.174 > 2 years should be required to thoroughly rejuvenate typical cells with TA-65. Furthermore, we loose about 50 bp per year to normal attrition as our cells divide year by year, so over 2 years of treatment we need to tack on 100 bp just to keep up with aging. Thus about 11000/460 = 2.3913 > 2 years is a rough guide to what to expect. After 3 or 4 years of plenty of astragaloside application, we should probably expect to have achieved serious rejuvenation effects.

It might have sense, in fact to up the dosage to 100mg if there were no side effects at 5mg/day.

As all of you know there are some concerns regarding telomerase expression and increased cancer risk.
There are studies that have been posted in this thread that seem to show that transient telomerase activation normally occours in certain areas of our body without upping that risk.

Now, it seems to me that 3 or 4 years of full-body telomerase over-expression might not be considered as "transient", even if there are some stops in between.

Now let's suppose that by upping the dosage by 20x (from 5mg -> 100mg)
they can increase telomerase expression in somatic cell thereby increasing speed rate of telomeres enlengthening.
And keep supposing that 5mg->100mg => 5x faster telomeres enlengthening.
That means they could add 1500 base pairs in a 3 month period.
And stop, over with the treatment.
Now that would be a more realistic transient full body telomerase overexpression, that would also minimize the risk of a 3-4 years long treatment and give its benefit in a very short time frame.

Now I'm just guessing time spans, but i have the feeling they might want to achieve the highest telomeres enlengthening within the shortest period of time, and that might make sense.

Anthony's (post cycloastragenol) blood tests result may clear up things a bit. When are you plannig to do your test?

Have a nice day
Kito

Edited by kitinje, 10 December 2009 - 01:57 AM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Kito,

I was thinking in 6 months, any reason folks think I should take it in 3 months?
I think most folks take the test at 6 months.

A

[niner]

Now let's suppose that by upping the dosage by 20x (from 5mg -> 100mg)
they can increase telomerase expression in somatic cell thereby increasing speed rate of telomeres enlengthening.
And keep supposing that 5mg->100mg => 5x faster telomeres enlengthening.
That means they could add 1500 base pairs in a 3 month period.

We don't know if there is a dose-response relationship though. If it's a matter of telomerase being expressed or not, it might be a fixed rate regardless of dose. We really don't know if it was working at all at 5mg/d though, so it's hard to predict what the outcome would be at the higher dose. I think as far as Anthony's measurement goes, six months is probably a better choice given the accuracy of the test.

[xtol]

Now let's suppose that by upping the dosage by 20x (from 5mg -> 100mg)
they can increase telomerase expression in somatic cell thereby increasing speed rate of telomeres enlengthening.
And keep supposing that 5mg->100mg => 5x faster telomeres enlengthening.
That means they could add 1500 base pairs in a 3 month period.

We don't know if there is a dose-response relationship though. If it's a matter of telomerase being expressed or not, it might be a fixed rate regardless of dose. We really don't know if it was working at all at 5mg/d though, so it's hard to predict what the outcome would be at the higher dose. I think as far as Anthony's measurement goes, six months is probably a better choice given the accuracy of the test.

I am not a biologist or biochemist, but intuitively I would agree that construction processes at the level of DNA molecules is probably more or less fixed, and is not regulated by a strict dose-response relationship. I don't really know, but there may be a threshold response, wherein a certain concentration of (astragalosidic) molecules must be reached before telomerase production is initiated.

If 5mg did produce the results reported by TA Sciences, there seems little theoretical justification for changing the protocol by a dosing factor of 20x). So, if 5mg WAS efficacious, then it was likely not A4, but cycloastraganol. If 5mg was ineffective and 100mg was effective, then it could be A4. But the possibility that TA-65 is not 100mg doses of cycloastraganol cannot be ruled out.

[GreenPower]

Now let's suppose that by upping the dosage by 20x (from 5mg -> 100mg)
they can increase telomerase expression in somatic cell thereby increasing speed rate of telomeres enlengthening.
And keep supposing that 5mg->100mg => 5x faster telomeres enlengthening.
That means they could add 1500 base pairs in a 3 month period.

We don't know if there is a dose-response relationship though. If it's a matter of telomerase being expressed or not, it might be a fixed rate regardless of dose. We really don't know if it was working at all at 5mg/d though, so it's hard to predict what the outcome would be at the higher dose. I think as far as Anthony's measurement goes, six months is probably a better choice given the accuracy of the test.

I am not a biologist or biochemist, but intuitively I would agree that construction processes at the level of DNA molecules is probably more or less fixed, and is not regulated by a strict dose-response relationship. I don't really know, but there may be a threshold response, wherein a certain concentration of (astragalosidic) molecules must be reached before telomerase production is initiated.

If 5mg did produce the results reported by TA Sciences, there seems little theoretical justification for changing the protocol by a dosing factor of 20x). So, if 5mg WAS efficacious, then it was likely not A4, but cycloastraganol. If 5mg was ineffective and 100mg was effective, then it could be A4. But the possibility that TA-65 is not 100mg doses of cycloastraganol cannot be ruled out.

Here's the dose/response curve for TAT2/Cycloastragenol in vitro, according to the report published by Rita B Effros et al in the Journal of Immunology (Nov 2008, 181: 7400-7406). Specifically it shows "b, Dose-response curve of PHA-stimulated PBMC from HIV-infected individuals (n = 6), showing mean (and SD) telomerase activity from cultures treated with TAT2 vs DMSO every 48 h for 12 days".

Does anyone know how to transform this into a recommended minimum and maximum dose for a normal person in order to maximize the effect? Including the negative effect on absorption by the digestive system...

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Anthony_Loera]

I have to say, that I do like my current B-Cell and NK Cell Telomere length which are above average according to the last telomere tests, however in my personal opinion A4 did not produce satisfying results. Don't get me wrong, for all I know it could have stopped my telomeres from shrinking, or slowed them down.

However at this time, I will make the business decision to discontinue making our Astragaloside IV capsules, and work directly with Cycloastragenol along with a new material. It's possible I am making a mistake, however the results of 100mg of A4 simply where not what I expected, specially after reviewing the data. If you combine this with the fact that the Cycloastragenol we contributed to a lab in California shows promising results... it seems to me that we should concentrate on the substance that appears to have more data behind it.

As part of our policy when we update some of our products, our current monthly A4 customers will be provided our Cycloastragenol product without an increase in pricing starting January.


Cheers
A

Sasha,

you said I took down my telomere results?

Hmm...
no, I still see the link on the first one on the website:
August 2008 Tests

The second one found in this thread still works as well:
March 2009 Tests

My new results are not in yet for a few reasons:
1- I was waiting for another company to reply to my questions (This didn't happen, no answers were given even though I was promised answers)
2- I got a little side tracked on another project, that is important for me and possibly a few other people. (basically a new Mastergene® product for P16)
3- A personal reason that pushed back multiple work projects.

I promise to put my new blood tests in as soon as I can.
Sorry for the delay on the Astragaloside IV related telomere tests.

Cheers
A

Here is my latest Telomere tests:
November 2009 Tests

I haven't checked this one yet.
I just got it a few minutes ago, and will probably look at it later after I work on my daughters crib.
(She tried to lift herself out of it today... scared the heck out of me.)

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 10 December 2009 - 10:40 PM.

[kitinje]

I had a look at the article posted by Greenpower before posting this reply, that table shows that there is in fact a concentration/activity relationship,

Telomerase expression (induced by cycloastragenol) starts at a certain concentration, it keeps rising in a concentration dependent way until a limit is reached, then it starts decreasing again.

10[nM] --> 1000[nM] (100x increase) = 2x increased expression (in vitro!)

It is obviously more difficult to predict concentration[nM] changes at cellular level in vivo but increasing dosage by 20x is not a complete nonsense if they can dobule telomerase activity.
It might make less sense economically, but they are taking a lot of money for the Patton protocol and they are probably still trying to figure out at what concentration they can get the highest telomerase expression in vivo. In future they might as well find a way to obtain cycloastragenol at a lower price.

It would be interesting to see a telomerase-expression/telomeres-enlengthening-speed curve, if it is not linear that could mean that a 2x increased telomerase expression could translate to a even higher x of telomeres lengthening.
Anyone knows where to find such an activity curve?

PS:
Hi Anthony,
I agree, I think that testing cycloastragenol effect in a 5-6 month period will probably be the best solution.

Edited by kitinje, 11 December 2009 - 02:02 AM.

[niner]

In future they might as well find a way to obtain cycloastragenol at a lower price.

this might do it:

Provided is a method of preparing cycloastragenol monoglycoside CMG (cycloastragenol-6-O-beta-D-glucoside), which comprises the following steps of: a. using astragaloside IV or extracts of Radix Astragali by conventional method as material and adding a proper solvent to prepare medical solution; b. adding hydrolase and hydrolyzing at constant temperature to get hydrolysate; c. separating hydrolysate with macroporous adsorption resin; and d. obtaining products by purification and separation. Cycloastragenol-6-O-beta-D-glucoside by the method and its use for producing medicine for treating cardiovascular diseases, pharmaceutical composition comprising it are also provided.

This abstract is from a Chinese patent. http://www.wipo.int/...p?WO=2009046620

[niner]

Here's the dose/response curve for TAT2/Cycloastragenol in vitro, according to the report published by Rita B Effros et al in the Journal of Immunology (Nov 2008, 181: 7400-7406). Specifically it shows "b, Dose-response curve of PHA-stimulated PBMC from HIV-infected individuals (n = 6), showing mean (and SD) telomerase activity from cultures treated with TAT2 vs DMSO every 48 h for 12 days".

Does anyone know how to transform this into a recommended minimum and maximum dose for a normal person in order to maximize the effect? Including the negative effect on absorption by the digestive system...

It's hard to estimate what will happen to the drug if you swallow it, but to put a lower limit on the amount you would need in order to reach those concentrations, we can do a ballpark estimate. If you injected the drug intravenously, and assumed 5 liters plasma volume, to get 1000 nM = 1 uM, and assuming the use of the aglycone (MW=491);

1e-6 m/l * 5 l * 491g/m = 0.0025g = 2.5 mg

Cycloastragenol has a very shallow dose-response curve in this particular experiment. There's a 50% increase at 10nM, and 100% increase at 1000nM, then a decrease at 10 uM. The 10 uM number is probably irrelevant, and may just represent a toxicity. From the calculation, it's highly unlikely that an oral dose of 5 mg would result in a 1000nM plasma level, but it's 200 times the amount needed via a theoretical intravenous injection (with NO metabolism!) to reach 10 nM, which resulted in a 50% increase in the in vitro experiment. Therefore, it's not crazy to use this as a starting dose. The only way to do this kind of thing right is to dose a person orally, then periodically draw their blood and assay it for cycloastragenol content. It's possible that they did that, and realized that they weren't seeing the concentrations they had hoped for. It's also possible, and more likely, I think, that they saw neither toxicity nor telomere extension, and just got a lot more bold with the dose. It's also worth considering that healthy human cells of various types (since we want to hit them all) might require a lot higher dose than the amped up HIV infected cells in the experiment above. The lack of metabolism and perfect absorption assumed by the lower bound calculation are pretty unlikely assumptions. It might turn out that you need even more than 100mg orally.

[xtol]

Here's the dose/response curve for TAT2/Cycloastragenol in vitro, according to the report published by Rita B Effros et al in the Journal of Immunology (Nov 2008, 181: 7400-7406). Specifically it shows "b, Dose-response curve of PHA-stimulated PBMC from HIV-infected individuals (n = 6), showing mean (and SD) telomerase activity from cultures treated with TAT2 vs DMSO every 48 h for 12 days".

Does anyone know how to transform this into a recommended minimum and maximum dose for a normal person in order to maximize the effect? Including the negative effect on absorption by the digestive system...

It's hard to estimate what will happen to the drug if you swallow it, but to put a lower limit on the amount you would need in order to reach those concentrations, we can do a ballpark estimate. If you injected the drug intravenously, and assumed 5 liters plasma volume, to get 1000 nM = 1 uM, and assuming the use of the aglycone (MW=491);

1e-6 m/l * 5 l * 491g/m = 0.0025g = 2.5 mg

Cycloastragenol has a very shallow dose-response curve in this particular experiment. There's a 50% increase at 10nM, and 100% increase at 1000nM, then a decrease at 10 uM. The 10 uM number is probably irrelevant, and may just represent a toxicity. From the calculation, it's highly unlikely that an oral dose of 5 mg would result in a 1000nM plasma level, but it's 200 times the amount needed via a theoretical intravenous injection (with NO metabolism!) to reach 10 nM, which resulted in a 50% increase in the in vitro experiment. Therefore, it's not crazy to use this as a starting dose. The only way to do this kind of thing right is to dose a person orally, then periodically draw their blood and assay it for cycloastragenol content. It's possible that they did that, and realized that they weren't seeing the concentrations they had hoped for. It's also possible, and more likely, I think, that they saw neither toxicity nor telomere extension, and just got a lot more bold with the dose. It's also worth considering that healthy human cells of various types (since we want to hit them all) might require a lot higher dose than the amped up HIV infected cells in the experiment above. The lack of metabolism and perfect absorption assumed by the lower bound calculation are pretty unlikely assumptions. It might turn out that you need even more than 100mg orally.

So, we need less expensive sources of cycloastraganol. At the current rate, I would estimate that just moving to 10 or 20mg daily doses would be cost prohibitive for most people.

One other factor to bear in mind is that cycloastraganol is tasteless and absorbs quite readily when taken sublingually. I'm guessing here, but we might be able to cut the oral dose by somewhere near 1/2 to obtain the same blood concentration via oral mucosa.

[Lesbure]

Now let's suppose that by upping the dosage by 20x (from 5mg -> 100mg)
they can increase telomerase expression in somatic cell thereby increasing speed rate of telomeres enlengthening.
And keep supposing that 5mg->100mg => 5x faster telomeres enlengthening.
That means they could add 1500 base pairs in a 3 month period.

We don't know if there is a dose-response relationship though. If it's a matter of telomerase being expressed or not, it might be a fixed rate regardless of dose. We really don't know if it was working at all at 5mg/d though, so it's hard to predict what the outcome would be at the higher dose. I think as far as Anthony's measurement goes, six months is probably a better choice given the accuracy of the test.

There is a Patton program in Nevada that starts the pt. at 25 mg for 7 days. Then 50 mg for 3 months. Then 100 mg for 3 months. There'll be a 2 week break, then ever onward. Anyone have any opinions regarding these higher dosages?

[Anthony_Loera]

For years the Patton program used 5mg, and according to them, this worked.
Now, however they have increased the dosage by 20x, even though they reported that it worked for years with only 5mg.

If you just go by the reports from this company, it's hard to consider what the substance is.

I just had a new thought:
It is possible that they are using a new 'molecule' from the astragalus plant and simply staying with the same name for marketing purposes.

Since the label doesn't appear to meet FDA regulations from the get go and can't be sold as supplement at your local Wallgreens, I can see this happening as well. It is possible that It can simply be a formulation change, similar to other supplements have done over the years while keeping the same name. Of course since the label doesn't appear to meet FDA regulations, and is only being sold to folks that have to sign an informed consent/choice agreement for the yearly program... then I definitely can see that happening as well.

I really wish someone could send me a bottle so that I can have it tested and simply know once and for all, if it's simply Astragalsode IV or not.

Since:

• No one knows what TA-65 is.
• No one knows what the TA-65 success rate is.
• TA-65 is not affordable for many.
• You know that other telomerase activators exist.

Why then suffer, when you can simply get the ingredient that was tested by UCLA to increase telomerase...all without signing a year long contract and spending thousands of dollars?

Doesn't that seem like a "No brainer" to most folks?

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 11 December 2009 - 07:36 PM.

[zorba990]

Anyone know of any economical sources for telomerase activators? (not TA-65 which is not economical nor available that I know of without entering into their protocol paid lab rat situation) To me these have the potential to put Resveratrol to shame with regards to extending lifespan.

Currently I take Astragalus standardized to 4% isoflavones at about a gram a day (though I have no idea how much astragalosides are in this I take it because it is cost effective) Also I take 500 mg of another product Natures Way standardized to 0.5% astragalosides. Alternatively you could get Gaia's product also standardized to 0.5% astragalosides. But both of these have so little astragalosides in them that in order to get 40-50 mg which I read somewhere was effective one would have to take a lot. There are also products standardized to 70% polysaccharides, which from what I have read would include some astragalosides. The whole issue is kind of muddy to me, any clarity would be appreciated.

Epithalamin. If melatonin can exist as a supplement then why not Epithalamin?

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9226628
http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=22448
http://tinyurl.com/yb8kz8x

Apparently Antarctic baby seals have huge pineal glands so maybe you
can go down south and negotiate with one of them <g>
http://www.springerl...2647m18302r966/

[xtol]

For years the Patton program used 5mg, and according to them, this worked.
Now, however they have increased the dosage by 20x, even though they reported that it worked for years with only 5mg.

TA-65 could be cycloastraganol, but we really don't know. If it is, then we should expect results using 5mg.
However, it might be better to focus on developing a working dose based on the Effros study, since that is known to be cycloastraganol. Niner advanced what seems to be pretty solid calculations, but also noted some variables that might effect the dosage, namely the non-normal (HIV infected) population of the study and the factor of ingesting cycloastraganol as opposed to IV injection.

If indeed a 2.5, or even a 5 or 10mg IV dose resulted in a 1000nM concentration that produced good results in normal subjects, then perhaps getting cycloastraganol into a sterile, injectable solution might be a cost-effective protocol, especially if it turns out that 100mg oral cycloastraganol is required, as Niner estimates it might be. I don't know if many people would be willing to shoot an I.V. dose every day, or even intramuscular, but it may be worth a trial, just to test the hypothesis. With a drug as expensive as cycloastraganol, it would seem foolish not to experiment with alternate delivery methods.

[Suzudo]

Hello

I regret not having time to translate the text I
And again use the automatic translator

I must correct my previous message

It seems that there are several routes for the synthesis of possible Cycloastragenol astragalus plants

The molecule could be a precursor

These routes appear in an accessible book on google books

Another idea would be that the TA-65

Instead of a molecule were two

As is cycloastragenol TAT-2 (Telomerase Activator Temporaly 2)

An activator production epitelion (epithalamin)
and cycloastragenol

Like trying to suggest in another message

As the body produces more epitelion (Epithalamin)
It would increase the cycloastragenol
Evenly
And also the producer as the body adjusts

so I suggested the microRNA


I suggested rosavin (for production of epithalamin) and cycloastragenol

If it's not suitable or rosavin perhaps melatonin or other
melatonin seems to increase the rate of life flies by 10%
But also the same amount rosavin
In addition it appears that previously Serotone increases the availability of brain

I suggested another variety of astragalus. European but

Other
the Astragalus chrysopterus
contain

astrachrysoside A

http://ctd.mdibl.org...hem&acc=C067329

molecule very close to cycloestragenol

[PWAIN]

Anthony,

I note that the protocol is now available in a slimmed down version (not the $20 000 it once was).

Would it be worth it to you to spend the $4000 and then test it. Either way you get a 6 month supply and you crack a mystery and probably sell a ton of your product as a result. I reckon it is worth serious consideration.


http://www.tascience...onprotocol.html


Version 1: "A La Carte" Options for products and bloodwork:

6 months supply of TA-65, product only: $4,000.
TA Support Pack multivitamins containing 55 additional nutritional supplements: $300 per canister which will last for 30 days.
Mean Telomere Length measurements of 2 key immune cells (Lymphocytes and Granulocytes): $800.
Critical immune functions (CD8+/CD95 and CD3+/CD8/CD28- flow cell counts) at UCLA's Immunology Lab: $400.
Extensive bloodwork at Quest Diagnostics Labs consisting of over 80 specific tests: up to $890 (or less depending on your insurance and test locations).

There is no way to be certain unless ta65 is tested

I agree Nikolis.

Anyone have a few of these capsules? I promise I won't say how I got them.
If you want to be completely anonymous, simply send them to my office:

RG - Attn: Anthony
12460 SW 8 ST
STE 200
Miami FL 33184

Cheers
A

[niner]

I note that the protocol is now available in a slimmed down version (not the $20 000 it once was).

Would it be worth it to you to spend the $4000 and then test it. Either way you get a 6 month supply and you crack a mystery and probably sell a ton of your product as a result. I reckon it is worth serious consideration.

http://www.tascience...onprotocol.html

Version 1: "A La Carte" Options for products and bloodwork:

6 months supply of TA-65, product only: $4,000.
TA Support Pack multivitamins containing 55 additional nutritional supplements: $300 per canister which will last for 30 days.
Mean Telomere Length measurements of 2 key immune cells (Lymphocytes and Granulocytes): $800.
Critical immune functions (CD8+/CD95 and CD3+/CD8/CD28- flow cell counts) at UCLA's Immunology Lab: $400.
Extensive bloodwork at Quest Diagnostics Labs consisting of over 80 specific tests: up to $890 (or less depending on your insurance and test locations).

Very interesting. If we assume that the various tests would be performed twice, at the beginning and end of the year, in the full protocol, then a year's worth would cost:

TA-65: $8000
Vitamins: $3600
2 Telomere length tests: $1600
2 immune tests: $800
2 sets of bloodwork: $1780
-------------------------------
Total: $15780

I wonder if this is the old 5mg dose or the new 100mg dose? I would guess the former, but don't really know. If this is the full Patton Protocol, then it's a better deal, as it used to cost $25000. If it's the 5mg dose, and that dose doesn't actually work, then it's still not much of a deal...

[Anthony_Loera]

Resvhead,

I can go signing contracts that limit what I do with their product.

Cheers
A

[xtol]

Resvhead,

I can go signing contracts that limit what I do with their product.

Cheers
A

If it's true TA-65 can be purchased alone for 4000 then perhaps someone on this forum has the means to make the purchase and then make a capsule available for testing. I certainly wouldn't suggest the purchaser overtly "sell" the sample for enough to offset his or her purchase. But I would also not suggest the donor of the TA-65 sample shouldn't be compensated either. But that would be a matter between the donor and tester.

[niner]

If it's true TA-65 can be purchased alone for 4000 then perhaps someone on this forum has the means to make the purchase and then make a capsule available for testing. I certainly wouldn't suggest the purchaser overtly "sell" the sample for enough to offset his or her purchase. But I would also not suggest the donor of the TA-65 sample shouldn't be compensated either. But that would be a matter between the donor and tester.

Any one cap is only worth 20 bucks or so. The real problem is the intellectual property and the agreement that one no doubt has to sign that prevents them from having the capsule analyzed. Someone would need to quietly slip a pill or two to the tester, who would need to be pretty discreet about it. You couldn't advertise that you had done it, I'd think.

[xtol]

If it's true TA-65 can be purchased alone for 4000 then perhaps someone on this forum has the means to make the purchase and then make a capsule available for testing. I certainly wouldn't suggest the purchaser overtly "sell" the sample for enough to offset his or her purchase. But I would also not suggest the donor of the TA-65 sample shouldn't be compensated either. But that would be a matter between the donor and tester.

Any one cap is only worth 20 bucks or so. The real problem is the intellectual property and the agreement that one no doubt has to sign that prevents them from having the capsule analyzed. Someone would need to quietly slip a pill or two to the tester, who would need to be pretty discreet about it. You couldn't advertise that you had done it, I'd think.

It's a difficult situation. If we're relying on the generosity of those who are wealthy enough to buy the protocol and share the secret because they are moved by an ethic of advancing the general welfare, we might be waiting for the veritable cold day in Hell. The best we could hope for is that there's a Prometheus among the readers of this forum, willing to gather up the funds and buy a ticket to the inner sanctum of TA Sciences for the purpose of 'stealing fire' and giving it to us poor mortals. (And, of course for the possibility of getting future supplies of 'generic TA-65').

[AlexB]

I believe that TaSciences is putting TA-41 instead of TA-65 in the 100 mg pills.
According to their website TA-65 is a metabolite of TA-41, 40 mg TA-41 equals 5 mg TA-65.
They've probably changed their protocol, it starts with CycloAstragenol but switches to Astragaloside IV after a short time because A IV is much cheaper.

[Anthony_Loera]

I believe that TaSciences is putting TA-41 instead of TA-65 in the 100 mg pills.
According to their website TA-65 is a metabolite of TA-41, 40 mg TA-41 equals 5 mg TA-65.
They've probably changed their protocol, it starts with CycloAstragenol but switches to Astragaloside IV after a short time because A IV is much cheaper.

That sounds very possible, I didn't think about that.

A

[Anthony_Loera]

Folks…

Just an FYI:
A Notice of Allowance has been granted for Geron's patent, here in the USA.

Since I just found out about this today and the patent has yet to be issued, I need to reassess Astral Fruit for my customers because of this news, as I never thought a product of nature would be able to be patented. Specially considering different formulations of astragalus has been used for years in various herbal meds, that could have easily (as a consequence) had this function of astragalus benefit the consumer. A new discovery for the effects of a astragalus extracts do not, in my opinion, constitute sufficient novelty for it's natural extracts to be patented. We have a unique formulation of our own as well that we believe falls clearly outside of the patent claims granted, however we must still consider what this patent means for nutraceuticals in general.

In the meantime, excuse me while I go buy some Geron stock (and maybe you should too) while thinking about the future of Astral Fruit… It's possible we may consider a license from Geron to continue selling Astral Fruit, or simply discontinue selling this version of Astral Fruit altogether.

There is another material that is available after all, that we can consider.

As soon as Geron has an actual patent issued, we will stop selling Cycloastragenol to acknowledge the patent provided to Geron. We will then consider the future of Astral Fruit as a licensed product or as a product that uses different ingredients, that are still available.

For now… we will have a fire sale until we run out of product.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 15 December 2009 - 05:16 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Folks…

Just an FYI:
A Notice of Allowance has been granted for Geron's patent, here in the USA.

Since I just found out about this today and the patent has yet to be issued, I need to reassess Astral Fruit for my customers because of this news, as I never thought a product of nature would be able to be patented. Specially considering different formulations of astragalus has been used for years in various herbal meds, that could have easily (as a consequence) had this function of astragalus benefit the consumer. A new discovery for the effects of a astragalus extracts do not, in my opinion, constitute sufficient novelty for it's natural extracts to be patented. We have a unique formulation of our own as well that we believe falls clearly outside of the patent claims granted, however we must still consider what this patent means for nutraceuticals in general.

In the meantime, excuse me while I go buy some Geron stock (and maybe you should too) while thinking about the future of Astral Fruit… It's possible we may consider a license from Geron to continue selling Astral Fruit, or simply discontinue selling this version of Astral Fruit altogether.

There is another material that is available after all, that we can consider.

As soon as Geron has an actual patent issued, we will stop selling Cycloastragenol to acknowledge the patent provided to Geron. We will then consider the future of Astral Fruit as a licensed product or as a product that uses different ingredients, that are still available.

For now… we will have a fire sale until we run out of product.

Cheers
A

A few things:

1. So does this mean that Geron was in fact using Cycloastragenol if you are discontinuing due to the patent?

2. When is it effective?

3. How much supply are we talking about that is left?

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Mike,

1- Geron's patent states Cycloastragenol, as one of 4 products of nature or ingredients they show in the current pending patent (although the final patent has not come out, and this ingredient may not be in the final paperwork, but that is highly unlikely).

2- Don't know, but it takes 3 months for a reply after a notice is issued.

3- Not much (sorry I can't go into detail on this last one)...

Cheers
A